An airplane pulls a banner in protest at remarks made by Mitt Romney over the site of the Univision Facebook “Meet the Candidates” Forum in Miami, Sept 19

****

President Barack Obama reacts to a photograph during an interview with David Letterman during a taping of the “Late Show with David Letterman” at the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York, N.Y., Sept. 18, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Jonathan Capehart: There was a great story in The Post yesterday that was nothing but good news for the American consumer. “Gas prices expected to fall further heading into summer” read the headline. Truth be told, the story isn’t new. Dropping pump prices have been reported on for about a month now.

Yet, what interested me most was the chart that accompanied yesterday’s story. It depicts the daily average price for regular gas over the last year, from May 2011 through May 2012. Were it a noise meter, it would also chart the volume of Republican hysteria over rising gas prices.

….. the national average gas price, which peaked at $3.91 in early April, was down to $3.64 on Memorial Day. That’s 17 cents cheaper than a year ago.

According to Politico, Republicans are still going to target the president on gas prices. But with fuel costs expected to continue their downward slide, the GOP can expect its credibility on this issue to follow suit.

Richard Adams (The Guardian): ….Last night – under the cover of darkness – the Mitt Romney campaign published what it claims to be a birth certificate for “Willard Mitt bin Romney”.

As we can plainly see, this is obviously a forgery, and Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio need to get right on it. Here are the five key signs:

1. This is clearly not a birth certificate at all. It’s something called a “Certificate of Live Birth” – which suggests the obvious question: where is the birth certificate?

2. This is only the “short form” of the certificate and that is plainly inadequate. Why won’t Mitt Romney publish his “long form” birth certificate? What does he have to hide?

3. Notice that the “date of birth” is listed as March 12, 1947 – but the so-called “certificate” was filed on March 17, 1947. How can Mitt Romney explain this mysterious five day gap during which time he may (or may not) have been smuggled in from Canada? – the foreign country bordering on Michigan.

4. Using my computer I note that this “certificate” image is labeled: “Adobe Photoshop JPEG file”. Clear signs of a forgery?

5. “Father’s birthplace: Mexico”. Come on, do I have to paint you a picture for this one?

To be clear, none of these obvious errors, omissions and forgery are evidence that Mitt Romney was born abroad and has engaged in a decades-long conspiracy to conceal his foreign birth – we are merely asking questions. And putting words in italics for sinister effect. That’s all. Over to you, Donald.

LA Times: President Obama ruffled some feathers two years ago when he lambasted the Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision during a State of the Union speech. It was unusual for a president to criticize the justices as they sat before him.

Now, retired Justice John Paul Stevens has taken the equally unusual step of saying the president was right in challenging the court’s opinion.

Obama said the 5-4 ruling freeing corporations to spend unlimited sums on elections “reversed a century of law,” adding it would “open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.”

“In that succinct comment, the former professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago made three important and accurate observations about the Supreme Court majority’s opinion,” Stevens said in a speech Wednesday evening. “First, it did reverse a century of law; second, it did authorize unlimited election-related expenditures by America’s most powerful interests; and, third, the logic of the opinion extends to money spent by foreign entities.”

Richard Adams (The UK Guardian): …. Compared with the same stage in 2007, when the presidential primary season was running at full steam, 2011 is a flat tire. But it’s not just the lack of activity – the Republican candidates being touted are a collection of has-beens, nobodies and deadbeats, several of them barely household names in their own households. And those are the most electable ones.

Which is strange because the Republican party has just enjoyed an election triumph in the 2010 midterm elections that would suggest a party surging towards the 2012 contest. Instead, it’s more like the Simpsons parody of the football world cup finals: “This match will determine once and for all which nation is the greatest on earth – Mexico or Portugal!”

So far, the 2012 primaries will determine once and for all who is the greatest Republican presidential candidate: Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels?

Mitch who? Exactly. This Republican crop of candidates is a veritable “Who’s that?” of American politics.

Despite all that, talking to intelligent Republicans finds them brimming with enthusiasm for their party’s candidates. It’s a fantastic field, they insist – for 2016. Yes, they are very excited about the 2016 presidential elections, and reel off a list of top-notch candidates: Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, David Petraeus, Chris Christie, even Jeb Bush. Ask them about the 2012 candidates and they go quiet or start sighing….

…There’s the 2008 retreads, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. One has money, tons of baggage and zero charisma. The other has zero money, tons of baggage and folksy charm. There’s the retreaded retread, Newt Gingrich. There’s the no-hopers, Rick Santorum (defeated senator, swivel-eyed) and Michele Bachman (like Sarah Palin but without the gravitas). Ron Paul, anyone? And it’s not worth mentioning Donald Trump…..

NY Daily News: Nineteen months is a millennium in politics, but today’s smart money says Barack Obama will be tough to beat in 2012 – if the economy continues to mend …it’s amazing how many Republican mandarins privately brood about their chances of unseating Obama only five months after voters decisively repudiated him in the November midterms. “We have a far better chance of taking back the Senate than taking back the White House,” a gloomy party strategist told the Daily News.

Last month, GOP bigwigs in town for the annual Gridiron Club media dinner reached a sobering consensus: The slate of Republican contenders for 2012 is unusually lame. The best of the least, ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is suspect with the Republican base. One prominent party thinker believes only ex-Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has any chance of beating Obama – and rates Pawlenty’s prospects as weak. The pros know Tea Party darlings like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann have Obama aides salivating.

…”Every lesson that needed to be learned from last November has been learned,” a top Obama counselor said.

Strategically, Democratic and GOP strategists alike calculate that African-American and Latino voters will stick with Obama regardless. Given the Hispanic population growth surge, that means millions more voters Obama didn’t have last time. A key Republican analyst also predicts the youth vote, which enthusiastically backed Obama in 2008 but stayed home last fall, will return in 2012. “He can’t win without kids, and he’ll bring them back out this time,” he said.

…”It’s advantage Obama,” said Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson. “Unless the economy gets worse and the Republicans put up a stronger person, he’s in pretty good shape.”